Parting of the ways at the abortion crossroads

In an interview with The Sunday Times, published yesterday, the next Catholic primate of Ireland has said politicians who “knowingly introduce legislation aiding and abetting abortion” should not “approach [a priest] looking for communion”.

In the clearest statement so far on the church’s position Archbishop Eamon Martin, who will succeed Cardinal Seán Brady next year, said legislators who support abortion are excommunicating themselves.

“You cannot regard yourself as a person of faith and support abortion,” Martin said in the interview. “You cannot believe you are with your church and directly help someone to procure an abortion. This includes medical professionals and the legislators.

“If a legislator comes to me and says, ‘Can I be a faithful Catholic and support abortion?’ I would say no. Your communion is ruptured if you support abortion. You are excommunicating yourself. Any legislator who clearly and publicly states this should not approach looking for communion.”

‘Sure what would you want more than a tractor?

The Week reports this good news in its current issue: Farmers are always being told to diversify. Some convert barns for holiday lettings, others set up farm tours. James Oswald, a livestock farmer in Scotland, chose to put pen to paper – and after years of often fruitless self-publication, he has seen his latest book rocket to the top of the charts. Natural Causes, a thriller set in Edinburgh, has been downloaded 350,000 times from Amazon’s Kindle store. Its success has earned Oswald a three-book deal with Penguin, and a £150,000 advance. He has already spent the first instalment on a tractor.

Conscience and political decisions – an Irish angle

An Iona Institute lunchtime conference on “Conscience and the Irish abortion bill”, Thursday, June 6. Time: 12.30pm-2pm. Where: Buswells hotel, Dublin.

This conference will examine the issue of abortion and conscience in the light of the Irish Government’s proposed abortion law.

While the single biggest objection to the proposed law is that it will allow for the direct and intentional destruction of unborn human life, another issue that has not received enough attention is the way in which the planned law will seriously infringe the conscience rights of pro-life doctors, nurses and hospitals.

The speakers will be Dr Donal O’Mathuna and Dr John Murray.

Dr O’Mathuna will examine the implications of the proposed law for the conscience rights of pro-life doctors, nurses and hospitals.

Dr Murray will address the conscience issues facing pro-life politicians as they face into a vote on the matter.

Dr Murray is lecturer in moral theology at Mater Dei Institute and Dr O’Mathuna is Senior Lecturer in Ethics at Dublin City University.

Each speaker will talk for about 20 minutes so as to allow plenty of time for questions.

The Iona Institute’s submission to the Irish parliament’s Health Committee on the conscience implications of the proposed law can be found here on http://www.ionainstitute.ie.

.

“And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes”

This morning we heard the sad news of the passing of young Donal Walsh of Tralee. Donal’s moving story – mostly in his own words –  appeared here some several weeks ago after he made the country stop and listen to his pleas to his own generation to wake up and fight against the plague of suicide.

Donal, who would have celebrated his seventeenth birthday in just a month’s time died on the evening of the Feast of the Ascension. May he rest in peace. His bravery, his courage and his practical idealism was an inspiration to his own and every other generation. In what he did and wrote and spoke about he has left a legacy of remarkable value for a boy of just sixteen years of age. One follower of Garvan Hill described the post with Donal’s story as the best he had ever read among the 200 or so posts on the blog.

The words of John Milton in Lycidas,  his elegy for his friend Edward King,  seem appropriate for the occasion of Donal’s last climb up the monntains in his journey on this earth.

Weep no more, woeful shepherds, weep no more,

For Lycidas, your sorrow, is not dead,

Sunk though he be beneath the wat’ry floor;

So sinks the day-star in the ocean bed,

And yet anon repairs his drooping head,

And tricks his beams, and with new spangled ore

Flames in the forehead of the morning sky:

So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high

Through the dear might of him that walk’d the waves;

Where, other groves and other streams along,

With nectar pure his oozy locks he laves,

And hears the unexpressive nuptial song,

In the blest kingdoms meek of joy and love.

There entertain him all the Saints above,

In solemn troops, and sweet societies,

That sing, and singing in their glory move,

And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes.

A Machiavellian “product of political expediency”

Professor Binchy addressing the parliamentary committee on the subject of the Bill which has now been partially drafted.

And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew

That one… pig-headed Government, apparently deaf and blind to all reasonable argument – but unfortunately not dumb – could carry on with this treacherous and lethal folly. William Binchy, one of the finest legal minds in Ireland and former Regius Professor of Laws at Trinity College Dublin, in an op-ed in this morning’s edition of the Irish Times lays bare the folly of the Irish Government’s drive for abortion legislation.

He calls for “plain speaking”, something that is in very short supply in the Irish media generally and from the mouths of most of Ireland’s public representatives in particular where forked tongues are heavily oversupplied.

As Professor Binchy outlines it for us, the Government is proposing, for the first time since Ireland became independent from Britain nearly 100 years ago, that a law be passed prescribing the death of innocent human beings.

The forked tongues insist on calling these human being foetuses, an “it” rather than a “thou” or “I”. When “your” and “I”, dear reader, were conceived we were not an “it”. We were “I” and “”thou”, the same as today and forever. Our levels of consciousness did not make us an “it”. Making us an “it”, then or now would, not have made our destruction – had we been treated in the way the Irish Government is now proposing to treat thousands of our fellow human beings – any less heinous.

In what it is proposing, Professor Binchy points out, the Irish Government is flying in the face of the evidence of psychiatrists presented to it last January, as well as the overwhelming evidence of international research. He continues:

It falsely claims that it is bound to take this step by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, whereas in fact the judgment merely requires clarity in our law. The Bill provides no extra clarity as to medical treatment. Instead, it sets up a procedure for decision-making and decision-makers, with no guidance beyond current medical practice as to the content of any decision to be made.

 The Taoiseach claims that the Bill doesn’t change the position but he is here engaging in a tricky use of language. The Bill changes the position in practice in a profound way. It requires hospitals that respect the equality and dignity of everyone to introduce facilities for the termination by obstetricians of the lives of babies of physically healthy mothers where suicidal ideation is established in accordance with the criteria for abortion set out in the Supreme Court decision of over 20 years ago.

The Bill defines “unborn as it relates to human life” as meaning “following implantation until such time as it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of the woman”.

He concludes with his call for plain speaking and gives us some of his own.

Everybody knows that the Bill is the product of political expediency (and, for the Labour Party, an important and necessary step on a sure road to wide-ranging abortion).

Those who are lawyers know that it is not legally required. Those who are doctors know that it is not medically necessary. And those who are psychiatrists know that it is actually damaging to the welfare of some of their patients.

Let us strive over the coming weeks to encourage our legislators to step back from the brink and instead ensure that there is clear legal support and extra clarity for current medical practice that recognises the humanity of mothers and their unborn children.

 This proposed legislation is threatening to divide Ireland into two opposing camps harbouring animosity and bitterness towards each other on a scale not seen since the bitter civil war which divided the country after independence and persisted through many decades. No Irish Taoiseach has been regarded with the animosity and loathing with which Taoiseach Enda Kenny is now regarded by a very sizable percentage of the Irish electorate since the two decades following that civil war. His party came to power after the last general election on the basis of support from Ireland’s pro-life majority and on the understanding that he would protect the life of the unborn. He is now reviled for breaking that promise and that revulsion will be the dominant taste of his legacy in Irish history – regardless of all the commendable work the public servants of his government are now doing to pull Ireland out of the economic mess for which all its politicians of the last decade bear responsibility.

Irish publicly funded radio “groupthink” exposed – yet again. Then it “clarifies”.

The Iona Insitute, favourite whipping boy of Ireland’s left, was the butt of a piece of shameless pro-abortion special pleading on Irish national radio this morning. You can read the full account of this in a clear and damning statement issued by the institute later in the day.

The statement explains how, in the course of the station’s flagship morning news programme -with the station’s highest listenership – the programme’s anchor, Cathal MacCoille, interviewed a New Zealand academic, Dr David Fergusson, about a paper he has written regarding the mental health effects of abortion.

In the course of that interview, and a subsequent interview with Irish psychiatrist, Professor Patricia Casey, MacCoille badly misinterpreted the Iona Institute’s take on the Fergusson paper and led listeners to believe Dr Fergusson was unhappy with how we quoted his research.

“This is absolutely false as a reading of the interview with Fergusson shows. Twice MacCoille put quotes from our website to Fergusson and twice Fergusson said he had no issue with how we presented his research”, the Iona statement said.

The exchanges between the two men, in full transcript, make for bewildering reading. This is certainly one for the broadcasting watchdog to take in hand. What this latest example of media bias in favour of the Irish government’s abortion steamroller shows is how tough a battle the pro-life forces have on their hands with the strength of their arguments being bludgeoned wholesale by numerous instances of this kind of irrationality posing as honest and fair journalism.

Two days later RTE “manned up” and Cathal MacCoille claified – but did not utter the word he should have uttered, “sorry”.

The clarification, read out by Cathal MacCoille, said:

‘On Tuesday, May 7th, we broadcast interviews with Professor David Fergusson of the University of Otago at Christchurch, New Zealand and with Professor Patricia Casey, Consultant Psychiatrist at UCD and the Mater. The subject was the reported unhappiness by Professor Fergusson at the way his research was being interpreted by pro-life parties to the abortion debate here. In the course of the interview with Professor Casey, I said that Professor Fergusson had said he was unhappy at the way the Iona Institute had been citing his research. In fact, Professor Fergusson did not say he was unhappy with how the Iona Institute quoted his research and we’re happy to clarify that.’

The Iona Institute said: We are happy that this clarification has been issued but of course the need to issue it should never have arisen in the first place.

Language alert – now at DEFCON 1

In the midst of the present debate it is very worthwhile taking  a look at this letter which appeared in the Irish Independent on 24 January this year. This process of language distortion in the service of ethical and social and programming is in top gear in Ireland just now.

  Language is all important in the current debate about abortion. Subtle changes in the use of terms can gradually help to bring about and even justify ways of looking at ethical issues that previously were not acceptable.

A famous example of this comes from an editorial in the September issue of ‘California Medicine’, 1970, which referred to changing attitudes to abortion in western society. It refers, in the following excerpt, to the need for a linguistic strategy if abortion was to gain acceptance.

“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.

“The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.

“The very considerable semantic gymnastics that are required to rationalise abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”

It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.

This is a stark reminder to all of us not to allow slippage in our use of language, which could entail radically transforming our society and the state to facilitate the taking of life in an unjustifiable manner.

We can see how far the US has moved down that road of destruction since that editorial of 1970.

We are on the edge of that precipice just now.

Seamus Grimes
Tirellan Heights, Galway

Dreadful contradictions of the proposed Irish abortion law

This is from a very clear article in today’s Irish Independent. What hope is there that any of those we have empowered to make decisions about our lives and deaths will open their ears to reason, even just to listen and try to answer instead of spouting out meaningless spin?

Our Constitution upholds the right to life of the unborn as well as the born. This helps keep notions of death as a treatment for any condition out of our healthcare services. The other heads of this bill go to great lengths to reaffirm our commitment to the lives of pregnant women and the unborn. The approach taken to suicide during pregnancy contradicts these commitments and questions the legitimacy of the proposed approach.

International medical evidence shows that abortion is not a safe treatment for suicide. Those parts of the bill should be removed, and a commitment given to provide the most effective, evidence-based treatments for pregnant women with suicidal ideation. That would better serve the health and rights of pregnant women and their unborn children.

Read the full article by Dr. Donal O Mathuna  here.

The voice of experience, compassion and conscience

Ireland’s Rubicon moment

The stark choice, a choice in which each one faces a lifetime of guilt depending on the decision made, now confronts Ireland’s elected representatives. The voices of reason, experience and compassion are loud and clear. The Irish Government has refused to listen to them. It now remains to be seen if the joint houses of the Irish parliament will rubber stamp a proposed law which will put unborn babies and their mothers at the mercy of unscrupulous medical practitioners. The evidence from across the world shows that there is no shortage of these in every jurisdiction. Why would Irish politicians think that the situation would be any different there?

It’s is now all down to conscience and the letter from a good nun which appeared in yesterday’s Irish Times speaks clearly to the consciences of every Irish man and woman – but above all to each and every elected representative who will have to get up from his seat in the chamber next July and walk to the division lobby. On that day they will take Ireland across a Rubicon. What that journey will lead to is in their hands. Sr. Consilio Fitzgerald is very clear about what their choice involves. Would that they were all so clear. She writes,

Many of the distressed women who came to Cuan Mhuire over the past 50 years, came because they were suffering distress having undergone an abortion. Our mission at Cuan Mhuire is to help them understand their own goodness and their infinite value before God. They tell us of the difficulties they encountered at the time of their decisions. Despite all of our support and encouragement to help them rebuild their lives and relationships, many find it exceedingly difficult – almost impossible – to cope with their sense of loss.

It has long been accepted practice in Ireland that there are rare occasions where intervention may be necessary to save a mother’s life. This sometimes results in the unintended death of the child. This causes deep grief for the parents but mothers intuitively understand the reasons and may come to accept them.

The Government seeks to make abortion available in Ireland on the grounds of a “threat of suicide”. Medical and psychiatric evidence does not indicate abortion as an appropriate treatment for suicidal tendencies. In my experience abortion has never proved to be the appropriate response to the threat of a suicide. On the other hand we have helped many, many women who had abortions and had subsequently developed suicidal tendencies. Many of them did not really understand the consequences of an abortion and the devastation it causes. They needed love and care and non-judgmental support.

We – all of us – will have to live with our conscience if we allow, or acquiesce, in the enactment of this legislation. It is for this reason that all political representatives should be free to follow their individual conscience in deciding how to vote. Our medical, nursing and midwifery professions are central to the values, loving culture and quality of our society. They have long protected the right of an unborn child to live and fulfil God’s plan. Let us recall the words of Christ: “What does it prophet a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul”.

I am writing this letter – the first such letter I have ever written – in defence of the unborn child and the welfare of the mother. Also, I will know on my death bed that I have done all that I can to speak out on their behalf and on behalf of so many more were such legislation to be enacted in our name by our political representatives.

Iona Institute: “Abortion bill a direct attack on freedom of conscience”

The following statement and analysis was issued yesterday bt the Iona Institute.


The proposed abortion bill will limit the conscience rights of pro-life doctors

Hospitals with maternity units will have to carry out ‘lawful terminations’ regardless of ethos

The restrictions on conscience rights and religious freedom go further than most countries with more permissive abortion laws than our own

THE Government’s proposed abortion bill is first and foremost an attack on the right to life of unborn children. But there is another aspect of it that also deserves attention, namely its frontal assault on freedom of conscience and religion.

Head 12 of the proposed bill deals with conscientious objection. (See full text below).

It allows doctors not to perform abortions unless they are presented with a ‘medical emergency’.

However, the right of conscientious objection recognised by the proposed law is limited in other ways. For example, if a patient seeking ‘a required medical procedure’ (that is, an abortion) goes before a pro-life doctor, the pro-life doctor must refer her to a pro-choice colleague.

In addition, and even more worryingly, every maternity unit in the country must be willing to perform ‘lawful terminations’ regardless of their ethos. There is no exemption for hospitals with a religious ethos.

This is simply stunning. Even countries with much more permissive abortion laws than our own rarely go this far.

For example, Britain does not require hospitals with a religious ethos to perform abortions, nor does British law, so far as we can ascertain, require pro-life doctors to refer patients seeking an abortion to pro-choice doctors.

In this regard it is relevant to refer to a Resolution passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2010. The European Court of Human Rights is another of the institutions of the Council of Europe.

The resolution is called ‘The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care’.

Paragraph one is a sweeping and robust statement of the right of conscientious objection both of individuals and institutions.

It reads: “No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion, the performance of a human miscarriage, or euthanasia or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason.”

The explanatory note to Head 12 describes how the European Convention on Human Rights must be balanced against other rights. This is fair enough.

But the proposed law does not balance it properly, very far from it. The above quoted resolution, which will have taken into account the Convention on Human Rights as well, strikes the balance in a very different way.

In fact, Head 12 is extreme in its philosophy and its scope and as mentioned goes much further than other countries with more permissive abortion laws than our own.
This is simply one more reason to reject the proposed bill.

A final thought; would the proposed limitations on conscience rights and freedom of religion violate the Constitution?

ENDS

Nothing in this Bill shall be construed as obliging any medical practitioner, nurse or midwife to carry out, or to assist in carrying out, a lawful termination of pregnancy.

(2) Nothing in subhead (1) shall affect any duty to participate in treatment under Head 4.

(3) No institution, organisation or third party shall refuse to provide a lawful termination of pregnancy to a woman on grounds of conscientious objection.

(4) In the event of a doctor or other health professional having a difficulty in undertaking a required medical procedure, he or she will have a duty to ensure that another colleague takes over the care of the patient as per current medical ethics.
You are receiving this email because you opted to subscribe to our E-Letter at our website http://www.ionainstitute.ie

Copyright (C) 2013 The Iona Institute All rights reserved.